Quick answer: If social value appears in your tender documents but carries no evaluation weight, you are wasting everyone's time — including your own. Meaningful social value delivery starts with meaningful social value scoring, and that means committing to a defensible weighting before the first question is written.
---
The comfort blanket question
I have seen thousands of tender documents over the years. A substantial proportion of them contain a social value section that asks suppliers to describe their approach to community benefit, local employment, apprenticeships, or environmental improvement.
Then you look at the evaluation matrix.
Zero percent. Or — if someone has made a token gesture — perhaps two or three percent tucked at the bottom of the quality column.
At that weighting, a supplier who genuinely employs local people, pays the real Living Wage, and runs a structured apprenticeship scheme will score fractionally better than one who typed something plausible into the box at ten o'clock the night before submission. The outcome is essentially the same.
What you have created is a comfort blanket. It feels like you are doing something. You are not.
---
Why it happens
Nobody wakes up intending to make social value meaningless. The problem usually comes from one of three places.
First, there is nervousness about challenge. Commissioners worry that weighting social value heavily invites legal scrutiny, particularly if a cheaper bid loses. The instinct is to keep the weighting low enough that it cannot be the deciding factor.
Second, the organisation has not defined what it actually wants. Generic questions about "community benefit" produce generic answers that are impossible to differentiate, so the weighting gets depressed to match the assessors' confidence in scoring it.
Third, social value gets bolted on at the end of the procurement process, after the technical and commercial framework is already set. By that point, nobody wants to unpick the evaluation matrix.
All three problems are solvable, and none of them require legal bravery.
---
What a defensible weighting actually looks like
The Social Value Act 2012 requires consideration. The National Procurement Policy Statement — and the incoming framework under the Procurement Act 2023 — expects much more than consideration. It expects delivery.
A weighting of ten percent is the commonly quoted floor. In practice, for contracts where social value is genuinely central — facilities management, employment support, construction, community health — fifteen to twenty percent is entirely defensible, provided you can demonstrate the link to the subject matter of the contract.
That link is the key point. Social value weighting is not arbitrary generosity. It reflects the realistic opportunity the contract presents for the supplier to generate measurable benefit. A software licence renewal presents fewer opportunities than a ten-year estates management contract. Your weighting should reflect that, and your pre-market engagement should have told you what the market can actually deliver.
---
Specificity is what separates scoring from storytelling
The reason social value responses are hard to score is usually that the questions invite narrative rather than commitment.
"Describe your approach to supporting local communities" will get you four paragraphs of warm language and no numbers.
"State the number of new apprenticeship starts you will create under this contract, the qualification level, and the mechanism by which you will report delivery quarterly" will get you something you can score, track, and — if necessary — enforce.
Measurable, time-bound commitments tied to the contract period are the foundation of any evaluation framework worth the name. They also make contract management significantly easier, because you have already established what good looks like before the contract starts.
The Social Value TOM System provides a reasonable starting structure if your organisation does not yet have its own framework. Use it as a scaffold, not a ceiling.
---
The contract management reality
Here is where most social value commitments quietly die.
The tender is awarded. The social value commitments sit in the winning bid document. Nobody sets up a mechanism to report on them. The first review meeting covers cost and programme. Social value is item seven under any other business and gets deferred.
If you are not monitoring social value delivery at the same frequency and with the same seriousness as you monitor KPIs and invoices, the weighting you applied at evaluation was theatrical.
Build the reporting requirement into the contract from day one. Monthly or quarterly returns, specific metrics, escalation triggers. If the supplier committed to ten apprenticeship starts in year one and has delivered three by month nine, that is a contract management conversation, not a disappointment to be noted and forgotten.
---
A practical takeaway
Before your next tender goes out, ask two questions. First: can we actually score the social value responses we will receive, and does our weighting reflect the real opportunity this contract presents? Second: have we built the reporting mechanism that will hold the winning supplier to what they promised?
If the answer to either is no, the social value section is decoration. Fix the weighting. Write specific questions. Build the monitoring in. That is the whole job.